msnbc (Oberg) -- NASA selects new class of astronauts
|
|
Thread rating:  |
JimO - 10 Apr 2004 00:46 GMT msnbc (Oberg) -- NASA selects new class of astronauts Sources say agency is contacting candidates, but will first post-Columbia group ever fly on shuttle? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4704179
MSNBC.COM EXCLUSIVE By James Oberg, NBC News space analyst Special to MSNBC Updated: 7:26 p.m. ET April 09, 2004
HOUSTON - NASA has completed its selection of the next class of astronaut candidates, and is now telephoning the selectees to confirm their interest in moving to Houston, sources familiar with the selection process have told MSNBC.com. NASA spokesman James Hartsfield confirmed Friday that a selection process was under way but could not provide any specifics about the schedule for selection or public disclosure. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the sources said 14 individuals will be asked to report to Houston as astronaut candidates in June and begin two years of formal training at NASA's Johnson Space Center in August. The prospective class of 2004 includes two pilots, six mission specialists, and three educators who will go through mission specialist training. There also will be three candidates from the Japanese Space Agency.
Michael Gallagher - 13 Apr 2004 17:17 GMT > .... but will first post-Columbia group ever fly on shuttle? If they don't, they'll be the first batch to fly the CEV. It's not unprecedented: The first group of Shuttle astronauts, including IIRC Bob Crippin, included ones who had been trained for MOL.
jeff findley - 13 Apr 2004 18:32 GMT > > .... but will first post-Columbia group ever fly on shuttle? > > If they don't, they'll be the first batch to fly the CEV. It's not > unprecedented: The first group of Shuttle astronauts, including IIRC > Bob Crippin, included ones who had been trained for MOL. Of course, the downside to this is they had to wait a *long* time before they got a chance to fly. I wonder if NASA will choose to focus the training of this new class so they can more easily transition to the CEV when it becomes available. I'm guessing not. They'll want to keep the class busy learning how to do "astronaut things" and don't really know the details of CEV, but the details of the shuttle are well known.
Jeff
 Signature Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
Derek Lyons - 13 Apr 2004 19:09 GMT >They'll want to keep the class busy learning how to do "astronaut >things" and don't really know the details of CEV, but the details of >the shuttle are well known. FWIW the Navy considers basic training on theory/practice/method and the basics as important as training on specific equipment. Nukes for example recieve mostly generic training before reporting to their first ship.
D.
 Signature Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
jeff findley - 13 Apr 2004 19:55 GMT > >They'll want to keep the class busy learning how to do "astronaut > >things" and don't really know the details of CEV, but the details of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > example recieve mostly generic training before reporting to their > first ship. I wonder how well NASA separates basic astronaut training from shuttle specific training, especially when they've been planning, building, testing, and flying one vehicle for three decades.
Jeff
 Signature Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
Jorge R. Frank - 14 Apr 2004 02:17 GMT >> >They'll want to keep the class busy learning how to do "astronaut >> >things" and don't really know the details of CEV, but the details of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > specific training, especially when they've been planning, building, > testing, and flying one vehicle for three decades. In general, things that are common to both shuttle and ISS are separated pretty well. EVA training, for example (though it is fairly EMU-specific). Robotics training has a generic course before one trains on either the SRMS or the SSRMS. Orbital mechanics is pretty generic, though it is exclusively taught by shuttle instructors (at least for now). But most other training is specific to a particular vehicle system or phase of flight, and would be pretty difficult to make generic.
 Signature JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM.
jeff findley - 14 Apr 2004 14:22 GMT > In general, things that are common to both shuttle and ISS are separated > pretty well. EVA training, for example (though it is fairly EMU-specific). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is specific to a particular vehicle system or phase of flight, and would be > pretty difficult to make generic. That's along the lines of what I guessed. So, the new batch of astronauts will likely end up with quite a bit of shuttle and/or ISS training, even though they may not fly on either due to lack of "seats".
Jeff
 Signature Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
Jim Davis - 13 Apr 2004 20:08 GMT > Nukes for > example recieve mostly generic training before reporting to their > first ship. Things must have *really* changed since I was a nuke (late '70s).
Jim Davis
Derek Lyons - 14 Apr 2004 01:08 GMT >>Nukes for example recieve mostly generic training before reporting >>to their first ship. > >Things must have *really* changed since I was a nuke (late '70s). Not at all. The pipeline is the same as it's always been, general theory training at nuke school then general practical training at prototype before reporting to your first ship. Some may have gotten lucky and gone to the prototype for their ship's plant, but that was the exception. Nukes never had specific schools for specific plants.
D.
 Signature Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
MasterShrink - 14 Apr 2004 07:10 GMT >Of course, the downside to this is they had to wait a *long* time >before they got a chance to fly. I wonder if NASA will choose to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >things" and don't really know the details of CEV, but the details of >the shuttle are well known. This new class will also likely be involved in the development of the CEV. The last two astronaut classes on 1967 and 1969 (and a few guys from the 1996 group) may have trained heavily on Apollo hardware, but ended up being very involved in the development of the Shuttle. Bruce McCandless and Story Musgrave both served on Skylab backup crews but ended up contributing a lot to the development of Shuttle-era EVA equipment and proceedures. The unflown pilots, Joe Engle, Bob Crippen (and the rest of the MOL guys) also played roles in the development of the shuttle.
Provided the CEV gets developed, any pilots at least, who don't get to go up on the shuttle, will probably get to fly, probably back-seat to a veteran astronaut on the first CEV flights. The question is how long CEV will take to develop. STS took so long, that by the time it flew NASA really didn't have that many veteran astronauts on the payroll.
I wouldn't be surprised if any mission specialists in this group who don't fly shuttle missions land flights to ISS on Soyuz.
-A.L.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock - 14 Apr 2004 14:42 GMT What percentage of astronauts get to fly? I suspect historically it was much higher than it is today; perhaps someone could measure the trending average?
Bruce
Jorge R. Frank - 14 Apr 2004 14:40 GMT > What percentage of astronauts get to fly? > I suspect historically it was much higher > than it is today; perhaps someone could > measure the trending average? I'd say the opposite; today, just about everyone selected flies at least once, washouts and resignations before first flight are rare.
 Signature JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM.
Dave Fowler - 14 Apr 2004 14:56 GMT >From: "Jorge R. Frank" jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg
>I'd say the opposite; today, just about everyone selected flies at least >once, washouts and resignations before first flight are rare. This is correct. Excepting people still actively waiting in line for their first flight, from 1978-1996 (ASCAN classes), only one selected astronaut did not fly (who died in a plane accident).
The 1998 & 2000 classes and a few from 1996 are still waiting for first flight. One member of the 1998 class has also died in a plane accident before flying.
From 1959-1969, 13 astronauts did not fly (out of a much smaller number selected), either due to washouts, or accidental death.
Dave
Stuf4 - 15 Apr 2004 14:38 GMT From Dave Fowler:
> From 1959-1969, 13 astronauts did not fly (out of a much smaller number > selected), either due to washouts, or accidental death. I would use the term "quiting" instead of "washouts". "Washout" refers to not meeting a certain standard. I can't name a single astronaut who washed out prior to their first flight. During military jet pilot training, for instance, a distinction is made between a student Self Initiated removal from training versus washing out.
One of the unwritten rules of astronaut training seems to be that no one washes out. NASA will keep training you until they feel that you've come up to speed. (KC Chawla was one example of this.)
~ CT
jeff findley - 15 Apr 2004 15:07 GMT > From Dave Fowler: > > From 1959-1969, 13 astronauts did not fly (out of a much smaller number [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > one washes out. NASA will keep training you until they feel that > you've come up to speed. (KC Chawla was one example of this.) But it's possible that you could end up training forever and not ever making the grade. At some point an astronaut in this situation may "quit", but the reality is that they were a washout.
The fact that NASA does not want to publicly admit that they have washouts is why they will keep training these people instead of letting them go. Heck, you can even send them on trips around the country talking to kids. They can be presented as an "astronaut who hasn't flown". You just leave out the fact that they will never fly.
Jeff
 Signature Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
Doug... - 15 Apr 2004 15:59 GMT > > From Dave Fowler: > > > From 1959-1969, 13 astronauts did not fly (out of a much smaller number [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > country talking to kids. They can be presented as an "astronaut who > hasn't flown". You just leave out the fact that they will never fly. And there was at least one person you could consider a washout among the astronaut groups selected in the '60s -- Duane Graveline. His washout apparently had nothing to do with his technical or engineering skills, or his medical skills (he was a physician selected in the 1965 scientist-astronaut group) -- the story I remember is that he had some "personal issues," which included some problems in re violence against his wife. (Though I can't recall where I heard that story.) That would be a case of not meeting NASA's *moral* standards for its astronaut corps...
Brian O'Leary, of the second group of scientist-astronauts, was indeed a simple case of the guy quitting.
Doug dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com
Dave Fowler - 16 Apr 2004 01:13 GMT >NASA selects new class of astronauts >From: Doug... dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com
>And there was at least one person you could consider a washout among the >astronaut groups selected in the '60s -- Duane Graveline. His washout [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >be a case of not meeting NASA's *moral* standards for its astronaut >corps... I know he was in the midst of a messy divorce, however I was also informed he didn't make it through jet training (which the scientists in those days were required to do).
Dave
Stuf4 - 16 Apr 2004 07:14 GMT From Dave Fowler: <snip>
> I know he was in the midst of a messy divorce, however I was also informed he > didn't make it through jet training (which the scientists in those days were > required to do). "Doc" Graveline's own website, http://www.spacedoc.net/memoirs.html paints a clear picture as to why he, as was said, "didn't make it through jet training" (Jack Schmitt was his roommate at UPT, Williams AFB) - ______
David: "Do you think that NASA over reacted to the announcement of your impending divorce while you were still active in the astronaut corps?"
Doc: "No, I had no problem with NASA's reaction. This was their first publicized divorce of one of their shining knights. Their reaction was entirely reasonable and even predictable. What else could they do? I have to admit that when the publicity came out I felt like someone who had just received a lethal dose of radiation - I knew I was dead but was just not sure of when it would happen. After five months I resigned for personal reasons. It was the hardest decision of my life. The good news is that it directed me into the busy life of a family doctor for the next twenty-two years where, as observer, I followed our space program with heavy heart. Subsequently many astronauts have gone through divorce but I was the first."
David: "Gene Cernan wrote some derogatory remarks pertaining to your appointment to the astronaut corps in his book "Last Man on the Moon". What is your rebuttal to his statements?
Doc: "In case some readers may not be able to recall Gene's exact words concerning me I will quote what is arguably the most offensive of his several inflammatory remarks: [Graveline was possibly the worst choice ever in the astronaut program, the result of the National Academy of Sciences not doing the in-depth background checks that NASA had always demanded.] "I'd like to think that Gene knew better than to make that sort of a statement. Background checks had nothing to do with it. Sometimes events in our lives just happen beyond our control. I was just about to leave for flight training. I had no advance warning that this was going to happen. Fueled by publicity, it suddenly exploded, far beyond any hopes of being checked or guided. Of course it reflects negatively on me, yet I am the same man - still the best scientist astronaut NASA ever had. I deeply envy those fortunate few who manage to play out their lives with their first loved. It is truly a blessing."
David: "After leaving the astronaut program, what changes did your life take and how where you able to best deal with them?"
Doc: "Five months after the ruinous publicity and well into the flight training program I resigned from NASA officially "for personal reasons" and took up life again with my family. It was a reconciliation doomed for failure for every time an Apollo mission occurred I was pulled more deeply into self-doubt and troubled thoughts. A year passed and finally, like Thoreau, I moved alone into my little cabin in the woods of northern Vermont and gradually regained my footing."
______
______
David: "Since your leaving the astronaut corps, did you ever work for NASA again in any capacity?
Doc: "Yes. During the Four R&D shuttle flights in the early eighties, I took a six-month leave of absence from my practice in Vermont to return to NASA as Director of Medical Operations at the request of my good friend, Doctor Fred Kelly who, as a Pan-Am sub-contractor, had been running the health center at the Cape for years. Otherwise my only NASA contact has been as a regular participant in the Longitudinal Study of Astronaut Health, getting my annual physical check-up at Johnson Space Center."
______
~ CT
Stuf4 - 16 Apr 2004 04:56 GMT From Doug Van Dorn:
> jeff.findley@sdrc.com says... > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > country talking to kids. They can be presented as an "astronaut who > > hasn't flown". You just leave out the fact that they will never fly. There are plenty of astronauts who have been shelved as permanently-unassignable, but all the cases I know of have been *after* having flown at least once.
> And there was at least one person you could consider a washout among the > astronaut groups selected in the '60s -- Duane Graveline. His washout [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be a case of not meeting NASA's *moral* standards for its astronaut > corps... If he got canned because of problems with his own character, then I would agree. If it was because of problems with the character of the woman he married, then I wouldn't necessarily fault him for that.
My read from the bits I've gathered is that it was more a matter of NASA not wanting to look bad with the situation he was going through.
> Brian O'Leary, of the second group of scientist-astronauts, was indeed a > simple case of the guy quitting. It's been years since I've read his "ex-astronaut" book, but I seem to remember him telling how terrified he was of flying T-37s (Reese AFB?) and that he quit prior to soloing out.
~ CT
Terrell Miller - 17 Apr 2004 16:06 GMT > > Brian O'Leary, of the second group of scientist-astronauts, was indeed a > > simple case of the guy quitting. > > It's been years since I've read his "ex-astronaut" book, but I seem to > remember him telling how terrified he was of flying T-37s (Reese AFB?) > and that he quit prior to soloing out. well, he never actually came right out and admitted he was scared to fly...but he went on and on and *on* about how he thought it was ridiculous to accept a one-in-ten chance of getting killed in a jet aircraft when he was supposed to be training to fly a *spacecraft*.
Apparently it never occurred to him that if he couldn't handle a relatively simple jet trainer, no way in hell would he ever be able to master an Apollo spacecraft, let alone *two* completely independent spacecraft (CSM and LM).
 Signature Terrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net
"It's one thing to burn down the sh.t house and another thing entirely to install plumbing" -PJ O'Rourke
Derek Lyons - 20 Apr 2004 23:37 GMT >Apparently it never occurred to him that if he couldn't handle a relatively >simple jet trainer, no way in hell would he ever be able to master an Apollo >spacecraft, let alone *two* completely independent spacecraft (CSM and LM). Kinda like what one of my DI's in boot camp told me; "You know why we worry now about how you fold your clothes and stow your locker? If you can't master these simple tasks and the discipline which comes with them, how is the Navy supposed to trust you with multi-million pieces of equipment?"
D.
 Signature Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
Terrell Miller - 21 Apr 2004 03:45 GMT > >Apparently it never occurred to him that if he couldn't handle a relatively > >simple jet trainer, no way in hell would he ever be able to master an Apollo [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with them, how is the Navy supposed to trust you with multi-million > pieces of equipment?" same reason why all the whining about harassment in basic training really galls me. How the hell do those people think they'll ever handle combat if they can't take a little fraternal razzing?
 Signature Terrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net
"It's one thing to burn down the sh.t house and another thing entirely to install plumbing" -PJ O'Rourke
MasterShrink - 20 Apr 2004 17:04 GMT >I would use the term "quiting" instead of "washouts". "Washout" >refers to not meeting a certain standard. I can't name a single >astronaut who washed out prior to their first flight. During military >jet pilot training, for instance, a distinction is made between a >student Self Initiated removal from training versus washing out. I recall reading in "Deke!" one of the 1967 guys, Tony Llewellyn, pretty much washed out. At least that's the way Deke made it sound, stating "he couldn't hack jets" in flight training.
-A.L.
Stuf4 - 21 Apr 2004 04:54 GMT From A.L. (MasterShrink):
> >I would use the term "quiting" instead of "washouts". "Washout" > >refers to not meeting a certain standard. I can't name a single [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > washed out. At least that's the way Deke made it sound, stating "he couldn't > hack jets" in flight training. Good info.
Something curious about the way students are washed out of pilot training is that it happens in waves. When the military has a pilot shortage, higher percentages of students make it through. Then there are the cases were *much higher* percentages make it through, as with the case of certain Air National Guard students and especially foreign students. It's clear to me that there's plenty of flex in pilot training standards, particularly when outside agencies are paying the bill.
I expect that NASA fit into this category. Not just from a monetary standpoint, but because of the potential embarrassment to NASA of one of their elite selectees not making the cut.
And NASA students were not expected to actually do hands-on piloting of spacecraft, so that could have been used as one more justification for the Air Force to push marginal students through undergraduate pilot training.
So what are we to make of the statement that Tony Llewellyn "couldn't hack jets"? I agree that it seems to say that the Air Force dropped the ax. But that statement could also be said of someone who decided to call it quits. I'd be curious to learn whether it was recorded as a self-initiated removal from training or whether deficiency was cited.
~ CT
|
|
|